What to think of a very modern mass?

[pnewton]

And yes this is coming from a traditional Catholic having seen something new for the first time. Which forum would have been more appropriate?

I note this has now been moved to the Liturgy and Sacraments area. The forums are not labeled for the people that post there but for the topics. Non-catholics can post in Traditional Catholicism, if they have some question that pertains to that area and do not wish to argue Catholicism in general. Likewise, a person who has a question about the ordinary form of the Roman Rite can ask a liturgical question about that form here (L&S), even if they exclusively attend the extraordinary form.

Think topics, not people. In no place is it allowable to elevate any form or rite of the Catholic faith as superior to others. That is pretty much across the board.

 

[GPGT]

… In no place is it allowable to elevate any form or rite of the Catholic faith as superior to others. That is pretty much across the board.

Not to contradict my feelings in previous posts but that’s questionable in cases where basic rules are possibly being broken.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I generally go to an EF mass but Sunday I decided to go to a late mass a friend told me about at a Catholic church I’d never heard of before. It was about the least formal mass I’ve been to; not even sure I heard a creed said though I may have missed them singing it. Yet it was very intimate; basically everyone met and shook hands beforehand. It was basically a sung mass with newer music, piano and guitars, and I think even a sax at one point. I wasn’t crazy about being asked my take on the gospel by someone in attendance during the homily. The only time the preist went on the altar was during the offertory and for the consecration, which the two handfuls in attendance were invited onto the altar for. Veneration was surely lacking and I felt bad myself for not kneeling during the consecration (where we were invited to “bow” at two parts), figuring it would be seen as being done out of protest. I found it odd that the preist, even during consecration, kept using the term “the Christ” (ie. “Jesus ‘the’ Christ”). I’ve decided not to be upset of the lack of rubrics followed and the likely litirgical abuses, but to actually be happy to be part of a faith that believes the same thing yet can celebrate it in different ways. It was a mass for new and non-Catholics and those needing spirutial guidance and is put on once a month. If I ever go again I’ll need to lead by example, and will perhaps still attend an EF mass the morning of.

A priest friend of mine told me it would take quite a lot to screw up the mass.

I have and will advocate more variety and different cultural practices for Mass for what the Church gives us flexibility on.

Frankly, I have a dim view on Catholics who think that Mass should be all about happy memories of their childhood. And they wonder why we have a priest shortage and don’t fill up pews.

I was at a Mass once where I thought the Creed wasn’t said. That was a bit of a red flag.

 

[felsguy]

This is part of the problem. One is not supposed to be part of the “service.” Someone could only feel this way if they had no idea what’s going on. They are to be witnessing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and if they had any inkling of what that was they’d be on their knees praying.

NO,NO. NO! Where do you get this. Of course we are to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus never said “Just you apostles are to do this in remembrance of me while everybody else simply watches.”

.

 

[andrewstx]

Oh yeah - what does EF mean?

It means the Mass is in Latin Only.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It means the Mass is in Latin Only.

Not quite. EF= extraordinary form, a term used to describe a Mass that is celebrated according to the missal of 1962.

The OF, or ordinary form is the Mass that is celebrated according to the missal of Paul VI that came into use in 1969 and the Mass that is the what most Catholics see every day/week in their parish.

Latin is a requirement when celebrating the EF, the OF can be said in Latin, as it is the language of the Church, but the local language (vernacular) can be used.

 

[pnewton]

Not to contradict my feelings in previous posts but that’s questionable in cases where basic rules are possibly being broken.

Rule violations have nothing to do with the form of the Mass. Of course it is fine to say one does not like something being done contrary to the instructions for Mass. However, it is not the form of the Mass that is being criticized, as no Mass form or rite makes and allowance for its own violations. That can happen anywhere.

 

[ccmcmg]

I must correct a previous post. It is not a Jesuit parish but is run by another order that perhaps does seem to have some leeway in how they perform the mass. The church was, however, previously run by Jesuits.
?

What order runs it, then? You did defend that it was a true Catholic church in communion with Rome by saying it was Jesuit.

Thanks.

 

[GPGT]

It’s an even older order definitely in communion with Rome yet as it runs very few churches in my country I don’t wish to name it. I wouldn’t figure there’s many former Jesuit churches now run by orders not in communion with Rome.

 

[GPGT]

Rule violations have nothing to do with the form of the Mass. Of course it is fine to say one does not like something being done contrary to the instructions for Mass. However, it is not the form of the Mass that is being criticized, as no Mass form or rite makes and allowance for its own violations. That can happen anywhere.

To be perfectly honest I’m not sure how many Novus Ordo masses in recent memory I’ve been to where some, perhaps even insignificant rule wasn’t broken or something didn’t look right. The fairly modern (though perhaps not as much as I previously thought) parish I grew up in has used “EMHCs” at every Sunday mass I can remember and that is going back many years. Knowing now this isn’t really allowed beyond a once and a while emergency, I have to wonder what other rules are being broken and don’t know what to think of going to mass there anymore when I know an EF mass is available to me. After 30 years of breaking this rule the church will have a new custom and then actually be allowed to continue. Personally I feel obliged to go to the EF mass.

 

[paperwight66]

Are you sure about that?

 

[GPGT]

Are you sure about that?

See here starting at 154: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20VII

 

[ProVobis]

After 30 years of breaking this rule the church will have a new custom and then actually be allowed to continue.

I believe I know the canon law which you refer to. I don’t think it works like that, though.

 

[GPGT]

I believe I know the canon law which you refer to. I don’t think it works like that, though.

Perhaps that wasn’t its intention but I’m afraid it may just be happening. On the other hand the law has likely brought many beautiful local customs into the churches in a worldwide sense.

 

[pnewton]

After 30 years of breaking this rule the church will have a new custom and then actually be allowed to continue. Personally I feel obliged to go to the EF mass.

Perhaps your opinion of rules being broken is not the same as the bishop. The Church does not have rules about Mass. It has instructions. It has canon law. Part of this structure is the allowance of the bishop to apply the instructions to the liturgy in his diocese. Also, National Conferences has some authority to make changes beneficial to their country, sometimes with approval of the Holy See, sometimes in areas already granted them.

Authority and subsidiarity are as much a part of Catholic tradition and structure as any set of instructions or code of canon law. In fact, the two do not contradict, but complement each other, with this authority being codified, and the instructions on liturgy the framework from which the authority operates. This is not something new to Catholicism. The Council of Trent had among other tasks, the codification of the Mass to bring it into greater uniformity as it had morphed into different directions. That is why we have the Tridentine Mass. Similarly, Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in 2004 to bring unity in a few limited areas. I know that abuse can exist, but if you are seeing abuse in every Mass, it is the definition of abuse that needs refinement not the entirety of Catholicism.

 

[Phemie]

Perhaps your opinion of rules being broken is not the same as the bishop. The Church does not have rules about Mass. It has instructions. It has canon law. Part of this structure is the allowance of the bishop to apply the instructions to the liturgy in his diocese. Also, National Conferences has some authority to make changes beneficial to their country, sometimes with approval of the Holy See, sometimes in areas already granted them.

Authority and subsidiarity are as much a part of Catholic tradition and structure as any set of instructions or code of canon law. In fact, the two do not contradict, but complement each other, with this authority being codified, and the instructions on liturgy the framework from which the authority operates. This is not something new to Catholicism. The Council of Trent had among other tasks, the codification of the Mass to bring it into greater uniformity as it had morphed into different directions. That is why we have the Tridentine Mass. Similarly, Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in 2004 to bring unity in a few limited areas. I know that abuse can exist, but if you are seeing abuse in every Mass, it is the definition of abuse that needs refinement not the entirety of Catholicism.

The GIRM spells out what the Bishop can change and it’s not much.

origin.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-9.cfm

 

[pnewton]

The GIRM spells out what the Bishop can change and it’s not much.

Change? I said nothing of changing the instructions, only applying them. Over time change can and does occur, but that is done within the context of a national episcopal conference, as per the link you gave.

I am concerned with a tendency for people to think their knowledge of the GIRM extends beyond that of most priests and bishops, seeing abuse in pretty much every Mass. I would say a good exercise is to look through one section and count those things times when something** must** be done or** shall** be done, and count the times something** should** be done or may be done. There is a reason one word is used and not the others. There is a lot more discretion than most realize.

I just flipped to a random one (108-111). I counted 2 mandates and 4 options. We need to remember the “G” in GIRM. It is a* general* instruction. Now every Catholic has the right to a properly celebrated liturgy, but each Catholic does not get to define what this means for themselves, at least not to the extent that an action will be taken.

 

[ProVobis]

Change? I said nothing of changing the instructions, only applying them. Over time change can and does occur, but that is done within the context of a national episcopal conference, as per the link you gave.

I am concerned with a tendency for people to think their knowledge of the GIRM extends beyond that of most priests and bishops, seeing abuse in pretty much every Mass. I would say a good exercise is to look through one section and count those things times when something** must** be done or** shall** be done, and count the times something** should** be done or may be done. There is a reason one word is used and not the others. There is a lot more discretion than most realize.

I just flipped to a random one (108-111). I counted 2 mandates and 4 options. We need to remember the “G” in GIRM. It is a* general* instruction. Now every Catholic has the right to a properly celebrated liturgy, but each Catholic does not get to define what this means for themselves, at least not to the extent that an action will be taken.

FWIW, as the IGMR/GIRM instructions are written in Latin, IMO it’s good to keep this in mind:

Irrealis is the term is what we use in English to equate with the Latin Subjunctive:

The English “modal verbs” are will, would, can, could, may, might, must, should, ought (to) and the now rare shall. The forms and grammatical usages of modal verbs differ in several important ways from those of non-modal verbs — e.g. modals are uninflected – as grammars are obligated to show in terms of an intelligible system,. Modal verbs express modal or unreal (irrealis) situations: those which are not yet existent, viz. futurative - - willed or forbidden, denied and so on. Modal need and dare convey modal overtones, viz. volitional force, advice or warning. Contrast needn’t (and obsolescent daren’t) with doesn’t need to and doesn’t dare to, and note the advisory vs. neutral thrust of the respective variants. Contrast negated modal needn’t with doesn’t before non-modal need . Another syntactic difference is that the modal takes a short infinitive (i.e. without to).

Tough sledding as this statement is, it covers accurately the use of the special English verbs which match the range of the Latin Subjunctives and several other Latin verbs as well. Nothing like Bailey’s analysis is found in standard English grammar books, which still tend to describe English grammar in terms of the format and terminology of traditional Latin grammar. It is especially in the analysis of the “unreal” that English grammar differs so strongly from Latin usage.

community.middlebury.edu/~harris/whylatin.html

 

[pnewton]

FWIW, as the IGMR/GIRM instructions are written in Latin, IMO it’s good to keep this in mind:

What with the change of the last translation, I am well aware of that. It is interesting to see that some of the phrase, now more literal, take a more wordy approach to emphasize these differences. They are they. Languages are never exactly the same, but the thoughts behind them pretty much are universal.

I just don’t see how anyone could read the GIRM and see a set of rules. Rules are in there, to be sure, but the thing reads, well, like general instructions, emphasizing those thing which are absolutes. Here is one example: ". If there are several present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. "

Despite the language, it is clear that this is something you can do , or not do. A bishop can swoop in and be more specific, if he sees a need. I was tickled by a Cardinal Arinze video where he, speaking of American bishops, believe it or not, spoke of his frustrations with “regimenting the people of God.” I guess I just see leeway.

Maybe it is a glass half full/ half empty thing.

 

[ProVobis]

Despite the language, it is clear that this is something you can do , or not do. A bishop can swoop in and be more specific, if he sees a need.

English is deviating more and more from the Latin, not becoming closer to it, despite the more literal translation which still has many problems AFAIK. Many nuances and words are basically not translatable. For example, did you know the English word “teenager” has no equivalent in any other language, save perhaps German? Many idioms the same way. But I digress.

Be that as it may I would agree that the bishops are the better interpreters of the IGMR (the Latin behind the GIRM) than we are. If they say it “must” be done or “should not” be done, that becomes authoritative enough for us, regardless of Vatican translation attempts.